tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post2562369434503200330..comments2014-12-29T14:52:46.536-05:00Comments on Founders Ministries Blog: Baptist Identity, Great Commission Resurgence and How We Read the BibleStanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06529978713987320095noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-63289432442294735772009-03-17T21:25:00.000-04:002009-03-17T21:25:00.000-04:00Hello all. I need help. I currently attend a ref...Hello all. I need help. I currently attend a reformed baptist church that does not accept membership of paedobaptists, though they do accept them as believers.<BR/><BR/>I am struggling to find any biblical restrictions at all for church membership (excluding unrepentent sin and false gospel).<BR/><BR/>Are there other restrictions anyone is aware of scripturally? If so, could you reference me to them? Thank you, I really am struggling at the moment.williamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14904947499708982228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-68965508355518730472009-03-05T14:53:00.000-05:002009-03-05T14:53:00.000-05:00Tom,Thanks so much for your continued willingness ...Tom,<BR/>Thanks so much for your continued willingness to comment on this issus. It is something that must be exposed to the light of day. The inevitability of Landmarkism from some quarters of the B.I. movement will be the death of the SBC.<BR/><BR/>Gene,<BR/><BR/>You are spot on.<BR/><BR/>The six step progression you identify is very close to the conclusion I reach concerning the things Yarnell has been saying.<BR/><BR/>It is Landmarkism. And just because Dr. Yarnell or his defenders say it is not, does not make it so. What he is actually saying can properly be understood as Landmarkism and ecclesiolatry.<BR/><BR/>If this is where Southwestern is going then they may as well start consulting with realtors now because they will need much less space in the future.Todd Pruitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08614293087144493430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-46728211492942840942009-03-04T16:32:00.000-05:002009-03-04T16:32:00.000-05:00I left the Word of Faith Movement and went straigh...I left the Word of Faith Movement and went straight to the saftey of the Baptist Church....only to find out that it is a church with no identity. At least in the heretical wof we were on the same pageJunkerJorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14720316945267930961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-55426779368952763702009-03-01T10:40:00.000-05:002009-03-01T10:40:00.000-05:00Gene Bridges,You said the One True Church.David Ro...Gene Bridges,<BR/><BR/>You said the One True Church.<BR/><BR/>David Rogers and I had a Post on the One True Church on these Blogs.<BR/><BR/>http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/search?q=one+true+church<BR/><BR/>http://wesmith.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/the-true-church/<BR/><BR/>WayneWayne Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14218244632682134340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-82705473578413707172009-03-01T00:26:00.000-05:002009-03-01T00:26:00.000-05:00There were certainly some strong statements in the...<I>There were certainly some strong statements in the message, but he seemed to me to be emphasizing that we shouldn't view differences on ecclesiology as a matter of indifference, and that if we really believe that the Bible clearly speaks on these issues, we should seek to be in conformity to all that the Bible teaches and that we should point the Lutheran, the Methodist and the Presbyterian to the truth on the issue of baptism, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem here is that nobody on my side of the aisle is arguing that ecclesiology is a "matter of indifference." Rather, the argument is that ecclesiological disputes are not matters over which to separate with respect to the promulgation of the Gospel qua Gospel.<BR/><BR/>So, if that's what Dr. Yarnell was articulating that's yet another misrepresentation he's made of his theological opponents in the long list of misrepresentational statements he keeps racking up.<BR/><BR/>The issue will get us back to who has the one true most holy pure and apostolic church...ecclesiolatry. Baptism if defined solely as a "church ordinance" when coupled with the statement cited by Tom and myself does in fact logically lead to ecclesiolatry and directly to Romanist theology...here's how, step by step<BR/><BR/>1. Baptism is necessary for salvation, broadly defined.<BR/><BR/>2. Baptism must be performed by a right administrative entity, eg. local church...one that fits a specific model in order to be "valid." (And if you or anybody else doesn't think that's what many of the BI folks believe, I point you to the baptism issue at the IMB not just 3 years ago, which haunts the SBC to the present day).<BR/><BR/>4. If you don't have this baptism, then your baptism is invalid.<BR/><BR/>5. If baptism is necessary for salvation, broadly defined, and your baptism is invalid, you have reason to doubt your salvation.<BR/><BR/>6. It is therefore evident that only one true church can administer baptism. If you should question your salvation <I>based on your baptismal status </I> then you are looking not to <I>Christ</I> for your salvation, broadly defined, but your baptism.<BR/><BR/>Now, tell me how that latter argument isn't exactly the error of the Federal Visionists encapsulated simply? Don't they teach that very thing? Does that not therefore undermine justification by faith alone? And if justification by faith alone is undermined, and baptism is indexed to a "true church" (denominational or local), then isn't that Romanist as well?<BR/><BR/>You see, when Yarnell speaks of a "fictious invisible church" he's openly advocating Landmark doctrine, and that gets to administrative baptism and the search for the one true baptism from the one true church - ecclesiolatry; Romanism is Baptist roes.GeneMBridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-80215490079192254482009-02-28T21:10:00.000-05:002009-02-28T21:10:00.000-05:00This is a really good blog entry. Have you notice...This is a really good blog entry. Have you noticed the affiliations of Fundamentalists (SBC and non-SBC) have hindered the maturing of their orthodoxy in the 20th Century? By associating with only those who agreed with their view of evangelism or eschatology, they have grown to accept the more Arminian views of Pentecostalism (i.e., connecting salvation to human works, or denying God's definite intention to save whom He will). From this perspective, their associations start at the third level and not at the first.Gabaptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05205430340347610308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-70657332976334710952009-02-28T18:05:00.000-05:002009-02-28T18:05:00.000-05:00Bart:If words still have definable meanings and we...Bart:<BR/><BR/>If words still have definable meanings and we can assume that educated people whose vocation requires clear communication actually mean what they say, then the view that you have carefully articulated here is indeed different from at least one spokesman in the BI camp. <BR/><BR/>Again, I appreciate the care with which you have expressed your views and hope that they will prevail in the BI camp.Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055905333350570428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-39587101938878769922009-02-28T15:22:00.000-05:002009-02-28T15:22:00.000-05:00Tom,I posted some thoughts on my blog concerning t...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I posted some thoughts on my blog concerning the SBC in July 2007, right after the San Antonio convention. They speak to your last two posts. If you wouldn't mind reading it I would appreciate your thoughts. The link is http://morris-pressingon.blogspot.com <BR/><BR/>Go to the SBC label.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>MorrisMorris Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18083884122271855154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-48866886215667987422009-02-28T12:07:00.000-05:002009-02-28T12:07:00.000-05:00Gene,I agree that importing ecclesiology into sote...Gene,<BR/><BR/>I agree that importing ecclesiology into soteriology can be very problematic. I have known Presbyterians who have argued that no true Christian can be an Arminian or (much more rare) a Baptist for that matter, since the Holy Spirit would lead a true believer to apply the covenant sign to his children and not commit what the WCF calls "a great sin" in neglecting that ordinance. <BR/><BR/>I'm not convinced that Dr. Yarnell's views as expressed in this message rise to the level of the FV and similar heresies. There were certainly some strong statements in the message, but he seemed to me to be emphasizing that we shouldn't view differences on ecclesiology as a matter of indifference, and that if we really believe that the Bible clearly speaks on these issues, we should seek to be in conformity to all that the Bible teaches and that we should point the Lutheran, the Methodist and the Presbyterian to the truth on the issue of baptism, etc. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps the most noteworthy part of his message from my perspective was his reference early on to the "fictitious invisible church," assuming I'm remembering correctly.<BR/><BR/>But it seems that these two categories of systematic theology (soteriology and ecclesiology) can't be completely severed either. As a former Presbyterian (OPC) I do believe that even their non regenerative arguments (based on covenant theology) for paedobaptism undermine sola fide in subtle ways. (That's not to say of course that Presbyterians reject sola fide or that there aren't things that many Baptists do that tend to undermine it as well.) <BR/><BR/>This can be seen when you question many Presbyterians on what advantage their baptized child has over the Baptist non-baptized child. <BR/><BR/>Chris Poeonepilgrimsprogresshttp://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-8145063230520123232009-02-28T10:45:00.000-05:002009-02-28T10:45:00.000-05:00Tom,If there is any contest between my views and a...Tom,<BR/><BR/>If there is any contest between my views and anyone else's in the "Baptist Identity camp" then I am unaware of it. As far as I know, the views that I have articulated are those held by everyone mentioned in this thread as being a part of that group.Bart Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-24482594966896593212009-02-28T09:43:00.000-05:002009-02-28T09:43:00.000-05:00WOW, Just WOW - Yarnell said:"Now, does that mean ...WOW, Just WOW - <BR/><BR/>Yarnell said:<BR/><BR/>"Now, does that mean that baptism saves you? No! But if you are saved then you will obey and you will be baptized according to Christian baptism not according to something of your own invention." <BR/><BR/>This man is a danger to the SBC and should not be teaching in any SBC seminary. He calls this Baptist Identity? This statement comes straight from the Christian Church's playbook. He's a Campbellite in Baptist garb!<BR/><BR/>Now this is a secondary issue, so if he wants to hold this shallow view of Baptism that's fine. But he should at least find a like minded church - like a Disciple of Christ church.jonabaptisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01112483779443595404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-40909255145929029622009-02-27T21:04:00.000-05:002009-02-27T21:04:00.000-05:00"if you [are]sic saved then you will be baptized a...<I>"if you [are]sic saved then you will be baptized according to Christian baptism." Do you see what he is asserting? If a person has not been baptized as a believer then that person is not saved, or at best, that person has no reason to hope that he or she is saved.</I><BR/><BR/>The irony here is that, taken to it's logical end, this sort of statement leads to "looking to your baptism" not Christ for your assurance. That's the same error as the Federal Vision among the Presbyterians. Yet, Dr. Yarnell is often critical of Presbyterians. <BR/><BR/>His general error of not distinguishing between orders of doctrines and reasons for error is also a Lutheran error from several centuries ago. Taken to its logical end, as in Catholic theology, it leads to making saving faith into dogmatic faith, as if the two are the same.<BR/><BR/>That in turn leads directly to ecclesiolatry.<BR/><BR/><I>Here's the problem: Baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the doctrine of apostasy are all radically opposed to the doctrine of jusification by faith alone. Those who teach these false doctrines as well as justification by faith are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.</I><BR/><BR/>A classic example of talking past our theological opponents. We Baptists are often notorious for this. There is no cookie cutter doctrine of "infant baptism" to take just one example. Baptismal regeneration as construed by Lutherans and Catholics are not the same. "The doctrine of apostasy" can be construed in more than one manner. Scott rightly noted that there's a lot of misunderstanding going on, and I'd add not just between Baptists but between Baptists and non-Baptists. <BR/><BR/><I>When taken out of context, a few of the passages can come off as troubling when viewed in isolation. However, it seems to me that the key moment in putting Dr. Yarnell's comments into context is his emphasis at about the 34 minute mark of KNOWINGLY going against what Jesus commands.</I><BR/><BR/>And here's another example of the above problem.<BR/><BR/>1. Lutherans and Presbyterians, to take two examples, would not disagree over the necessity of baptism. They would disagree over its meaning and mode.<BR/><BR/>2. Dr. Yarnell (ironically making the Lutheran error I cited above) doesn't distinguish between reasons a person might be "knowingly" doing this.GeneMBridgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-5533130335271006292009-02-27T17:25:00.000-05:002009-02-27T17:25:00.000-05:00Bart,To follow your very fine analogy I would add ...Bart,<BR/><BR/>To follow your very fine analogy I would add that many paedobaptists, in fact, <I>do</I> believe they have seen God do something and command something similar in the past - circumcision. They'll often cite a passage like Colossians 2:11-12 as a New Testament example of the correspondence between the two.<BR/><BR/>While I don't find that argument convincing, I don't think that they believe they have poured water all over the furniture. I believe they think that they have cleaned the room in a similar fashion as they once saw Grandpa clean the room, but where Grandpa may have used a broom on a wooden floor they feel quite comfortable using a vacuum cleaner on a carpeted floor.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01568650603425594448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-55334090412692724512009-02-27T17:10:00.000-05:002009-02-27T17:10:00.000-05:00Tom, I have been following the blogs of Peter Lu...Tom,<BR/><BR/> I have been following the blogs of Peter Lumpkins, Founders,and BI Folks. I see alot of misunderstanding of each other and accusations toward both sides. Can we not just stop and call a large mtg somewhere and sit down as brothers face to face ??? <BR/><BR/> Pastor Johnny Hunt forgave me when I went way overboard on him. We met face to face and communicate almost weekly. We have had two dinners together and the love that he has shown me has blown me away. Yes, we may disagree on some things theologically but Pastor Johnny loves Christ and has taught me more things lately about being a strong Christian and Pastor than anyone of late.There is no reason why Dr. Patterson, Malcolm, You, Dr. Akin, and whoever can't sit down together. Shame on the one or ones who feel they can't sit down and talk and pray through these things. This includes Wade Burleson as well. I understand that Wade has tried to meet with Dr. Patterson and he was not allowed to. This is wrong !!! I'm thankful that Johnny Hunt have me the chance to ask for his forgiveness !!!! Johnny has taught me more about being a Christian and Pastor lately than anyone. What is interesting is that we disagree on some things theologically but I love this man and brother !!! Does anyone else believe that these men need to sit down face to face and talk ????Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04272570259191278014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-37535704709606926712009-02-27T17:01:00.000-05:002009-02-27T17:01:00.000-05:00Going to SBC Today and reading "A Call to Christia...Going to SBC Today and reading "A Call to Christian Maturity" by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell and Robin Foster may also help in this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Davidvolfan007http://www.blogger.com/profile/15635929001030697924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-91523102847031409412009-02-27T16:56:00.000-05:002009-02-27T16:56:00.000-05:00In a crisis, at what level of triage would we plac...In a crisis, at what level of triage would we place monergism? For some, one's position on God's sovereign grace is a higher order doctrine, with many more implications for Christian living, than, say, believer's baptism by immersion.Joshua Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15825862924286784076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-43548174888070174972009-02-27T15:06:00.000-05:002009-02-27T15:06:00.000-05:00Thanks, Bart. Once again, I hope that your views o...Thanks, Bart. Once again, I hope that your views on this matter prevail among those in the BI camp.Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055905333350570428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-3402109806853312492009-02-27T14:54:00.000-05:002009-02-27T14:54:00.000-05:00Would I question a paedobaptist's salvation simply...Would I question a paedobaptist's salvation simply because he is a paedobaptist? No. I thought I had already answered that, at least by implication.<BR/><BR/>I would, however, have no problem telling a paedobaptist that a Christian should follow Christ in believer's baptism. In so doing, I am being hortatory rather than descriptive. I think that Malcolm was doing just the same.Bart Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-54470055235025829422009-02-27T14:46:00.000-05:002009-02-27T14:46:00.000-05:00After listening to Dr. Yarnell's message twice, I ...After listening to Dr. Yarnell's message twice, I find that it is a powerful message on the Lordship of Christ as well as a powerful warning against looking to some purported golden age in church history and unwittingly seeking to conform to that. So many have done the latter and unfortunately I have been guilty of this in the past as well. <BR/><BR/>When taken out of context, a few of the passages can come off as troubling when viewed in isolation. However, it seems to me that the key moment in putting Dr. Yarnell's comments into context is his emphasis at about the 34 minute mark of KNOWINGLY going against what Jesus commands.<BR/><BR/>I also find it ironic that Dr. Yarnell is essentially being accused of asserting that you cannot be a disciple unless you're a Baptist, yet he makes favorable references non-Baptists several times in the message.<BR/><BR/>Recently in Southern Baptist blogdom, we've seen many posts about division and a growing divide. When we are unwilling or unable to hear our brothers in the best possible light, the division necessarily widens. <BR/><BR/>With regard to theological triage, I find Dr. Barber's illustrations to be helpful, and I would be surprised if Dr. Mohler would disagree significantly.onepilgrimsprogresshttp://onepilgrimsprogress.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-91017881727192803152009-02-27T14:34:00.000-05:002009-02-27T14:34:00.000-05:00Bart:I am glad to hear that you "know for a fact t...Bart:<BR/><BR/>I am glad to hear that you "know for a fact that Malcolm Yarnell does not believe that all of those who have refused believer's baptism are lost." I guess that means we can chalk up his public words in the chapel address to misspeaking. As I have already suggested, I have misspoken many times and well understand how that can happen.<BR/><BR/>You and I agree about the meaning and mode of baptism and we both agree that the Bible teaches baptism for believers alone. We also agree (along with Malcolm, as you have informed us) that being wrong on baptism does not necessarily keep one out of the kingdom of God. <BR/><BR/>Given that, would you question a paedobaptist's salvation on the basis that he isn't obeying Jesus Christ in the matter of baptism?Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055905333350570428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-69146851417103686992009-02-27T14:09:00.000-05:002009-02-27T14:09:00.000-05:00Tom,I know for a fact that Malcolm Yarnell does no...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I know for a fact that Malcolm Yarnell does not believe that all of those who have refused believer's baptism are lost. Since I think it very unlikely that he will come over here to say so, I am more than happy to say it for him.<BR/><BR/>I do believe that receiving believer's baptism is the Christian thing to do, but one of the accursed realities of this fallen world is that Christians do not always do the Christian thing.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your extension of my parenting analogy: I think that you've found a compelling analogy because (a) such a situation is quite plausible in my practice of parenting, and (b) it seems to fit very well with what I take to be the point of view that you are trying to advance. In such a real-life situation with my real children, I reply that my son would receive a great deal of grace (albeit, only on the first occasion that something like this happened).<BR/><BR/>My only objection is that I don't think this analogy applies well to our discussion about baptism. I think perhaps it applies better to the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century debate over the laying-on-of-hands after baptism. Why? Because (to be a bit picky here) that debate (like your analogy) involved a number of things that it is indeed my habit to command, and the question is simply how much I meant to command to be done at this time.<BR/><BR/>The sprinkling of infants, however, is a practice with a clear history of development outside of New Testament practice.<BR/><BR/>A better analogy would be if I came home to discover that my son had determined to clean his room by filling up buckets of water in the tub and dumping them out on the carpet and furniture. The water in the tub is indeed used for cleaning, and he might very well have intended to try to eliminate some dirt by his actions, but mark my words, no matter how sincere he may be, he's getting in trouble when I get home.<BR/><BR/>Why? Because he's never seen me do anything like that nor command anyone else to do anything like that. He's invented something of his own to replace something that I might regularly instruct him to do.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you will not agree with my analogy, but by it perhaps you will come to understand more clearly my sentiments and perspective.Bart Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-47282633768083338022009-02-27T13:54:00.000-05:002009-02-27T13:54:00.000-05:00Tom Ascol wrote: "Mohler includes the Trinity, per...Tom Ascol wrote: <BR/>"Mohler includes the Trinity, person of Christ and justification by faith as examples of "first-order truths" while the meaning and mode of baptism would be a "second-order" issue and eschatology a "third-order" concern." <BR/><BR/>Here's the problem: Baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, and the doctrine of apostasy are all radically opposed to the doctrine of jusification by faith alone. Those who teach these false doctrines as well as justification by faith are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. <BR/><BR/>Also I thought J.D.'s comment was very telling. He said that those who reject baptism by immersion are just "as orthodox as we SBC'ers." Oh, well. So much for believer's immersion being an important doctrine of the faith.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02036791707615828160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-33186189522862523232009-02-27T13:41:00.000-05:002009-02-27T13:41:00.000-05:00Bart:I have not kept up with the dialogue over at ...Bart:<BR/><BR/>I have not kept up with the dialogue over at your blog, but will make a point to do so. It sounds like you are engaging some important issues. I appreciate your view on this and find myself, not surprisingly, in agreement with you. What you have written strikes me as considerably different from what Malcolm said. I hope that your view prevails among those in the Baptist Identity movement (I am not even sure if that is a proper designation, btw; I use it for lack of a better one). <BR/><BR/>Though the idea of theological triage is indeed a human analogy, I think that it gets at something that is necessary for, as Mohler put it, "theological seriousness and maturity." Jesus did refer to the "weightier matters of the law," pointing us in this direction. <BR/><BR/>Let me take up your analogy to parenting, because I think it does clarify. Suppose you tell your children to clean their rooms before you return and your son picks up all his toys from the floor of his room but does not vacuum the carpet or dust the shelves because he is convinced that this is all that your command requires. Your daughter, however, is convinced that you mean by your command that both vacuuming and dusting are to be done. Is she therefore justified in saying to her brother, "If you love dad you will vacuum and dust" or can she legitimately charge him with denying your parental authority because of his actions (or inactions)? <BR/><BR/>I would argue that such accusations are not warranted, even though she may be exactly correct in understanding your meaning. This is where Malcolm and I part ways, I think, when he says, "if you are saved then you will obey and you will be baptized according to Christian [ie. believers'] baptism." I would not pin the salvation of a sincerely convinced, evangelical peadobaptist to their submission to believers' baptism, even though I am convinced that this is what the biblical command means. <BR/><BR/>If I am misreading or misconstruing anything here, any help you can give to clear my thinking would be appreciated. <BR/><BR/>PS. You can cut and paste comments as substantive as that one anytime here!Tomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055905333350570428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-49054372205235124502009-02-27T13:06:00.000-05:002009-02-27T13:06:00.000-05:00Tom,Generally, I'm annoyed when someone puts a cut...Tom,<BR/><BR/>Generally, I'm annoyed when someone puts a cut-and-paste comment into my blog. If you don't have time to write an original comment for this discussion, then don't waste all of our time making us read it.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I'm obviously violating the Golden Rule here. ;-)<BR/><BR/>But a conversation ongoing with Timmy over at my place seems to be right along these same lines. Since we're talking about "theological triage" I thought I'd paste some of my thoughts about it:<BR/><BR/>I acknowledge the value of "theological triage" in (a) as an imperfect metaphor, (b) to be used in an external sense, (c) regarding the relative severity of the effects of disobedience in any particular area of what Christ has commanded.<BR/><BR/>The metaphor is humanly devised and therefore imperfect. The strength of the metaphor, I think, is that "triage" as a medical procedure is employed only in a crisis situation when one cannot possibly treat everything. The desire of the medical staff, however, is to treat every injury and remedy every illness.<BR/><BR/>Should one, however, take triage to mean some strange state of denial in which one dismisses certain legitimate injuries as non-injurious and unworthy of available treatment, then we've moved from triage to something far less reasonable.<BR/><BR/>It is plainly obvious that everyone on the Baptist Identity side is not only willing to do something akin to "theological triage" but is constantly engaged in the actual practice. Here's the proof: They all regard Mormons as heretics and Presbyterians as genuine Christians in unrepentant sin and error. You may disagree with the classifications, but you cannot say that they are the same thing, nor can you deny that we make the distinction.<BR/><BR/>Your statement, then, that BI people have rejected theological triage is therefore an empty one.<BR/><BR/>You can easily demonstrate that some folks in the Baptist movement have objected to the way that some people have tried to APPLY a concept of theological triage. For example, Wade Burleson's and Morris Chapman's (see his speech in San Antonio) application of the concept has been to deny the appropriateness of separating over "secondary" or tier-two doctrines. This is not Mohler's schema, and he explicitly said so in San Antonio. So, for those who use "theological triage" to eliminate tier two and have only the first and third tiers, yes, the Baptist movement rejects that approach.<BR/><BR/>Also, because the concept of "theological triage" is human and not divine in origin, somebody needs to counter-balance the idea of triage by reminding us that Jesus expects us to obey all of His commandments.<BR/><BR/>To employ another imperfect analogy, consider the task of parenting. I expect my children to obey everything that I command them to do. If, by practicing "triage," they should be referring to a process by which they will determine when to obey me and when not to bother, then it is disobedience even to embark upon such an enterprise.<BR/><BR/>However, this does not mean that I regard all of my commands as equally important. "Clean up your room" and "Don't play in the street" are two commands with vastly different levels of importance to me. Part of their maturing as human beings, and therefore part of my goal as their parent, is for them to learn that the consequences of playing in the street can be far more severe than the consequences of failing to keep their room clean.<BR/><BR/>And in this second sense, we can see that there is no "internal" validity to playing "triage" but there is some "external" validity to it. Internally, my children are to do no triage at all—they are to do what I tell them to do…everything that I tell them to do. Externally, if my son sees his sister playing in the street and I'm not around, he has permission to grab her, push her, pull her by her hair, hit her, kick her, punch her, do almost anything to get her out of the street when a car is coming. If, on the other hand, he punches her in the face for her failure to pick up her toys, then he's going to be in trouble. On the other hand, he has my blessing to tell Sarah that she's sinning by refusing to clean up her room and to do whatever he might to persuade her (rather than force her) to be obedient.<BR/><BR/>I think that this analogy applies quite well to explain my attitude toward "theological triage."Bart Barberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14021102240441576393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5669175.post-55778345931852204162009-02-27T12:51:00.000-05:002009-02-27T12:51:00.000-05:00Tom,I agree with you regarding male eldership, btw...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you regarding male eldership, btw. I could have put any other issue in there instead. When it comes to baptism, I am always tempered by Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians - glad he only baptized a few because he was sent to preach the gospel rather than baptize. This clearly puts a secondary status on baptism. I wonder how Dr. Yarnell deals with that text.Darby Livingstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00775191828560028746noreply@blogger.com